Looking beyond the spin of Big Pharma PR. But encouraging gossip. Come in and confide, you know you want to! “I’ll publish right or wrong. Fools are my theme, let satire be my song.”
Email: jackfriday2011(at)hotmail.co.uk
Friday, November 06, 2009
Merck - Saphris: now here's something you don't read in an FDA document every day
"In fact the evidence suggests that there may have been an intentional design to harm, maim, and occasionally kill children so as to induce the need for purchasing other products from the sponsor or cosponsors"
Funny how telling only one part of the story can give a misleading view, and then how people jump on the bandwagon. The FDA Division Director makes very specific comments about Dr Kavanagh's recommendations (see "Comment on concerns raised by Dr. Kavanagh" in section 5.2.5 of the document on page 16 of the PDF), which paint a very different picture.
6 comments:
Saphris - S.O.V.
(Son of Vioxx)
Salmon
"In fact the evidence suggests that there may have been an intentional design to harm,
maim, and occasionally kill children so as to induce the need for purchasing other products from the
sponsor or cosponsors"
I'm speechless
What is this document from?
This is taken directly from the FDA review.
Funny how telling only one part of the story can give a misleading view, and then how people jump on the bandwagon. The FDA Division Director makes very specific comments about Dr Kavanagh's recommendations (see "Comment on concerns raised by Dr. Kavanagh" in section 5.2.5 of the document on page 16 of the PDF), which paint a very different picture.
The review continues:
"This reviewer believes the following laws may have also been violated; these include possible violations of law by FDA personnel."
Perhaps the FDA Division Director had reasons to misrepresent information.
There are 2 sides to an issue. That's why we have juries. To look at all the facts and decide which side is telling the truth.
Post a Comment